he Tetragrammaton YHWH is not a proper noun but an ontologi- cal statement. Rigorous philological analysis of its derivation from the He- brew root ḥ-y-h/h-w-h identifies an imperfect-tense verbal form encoding con- tinuous, self-sustaining, reflexively self-grounding Being—a Being whose existence is not a completed fact but an ongoing act. The argument then moves outward: this same formal structure—singular, self-subsisting, self- knowing Being—is independently arrived at by the Western ontological tra- dition (Parmenides, Aristotle, Aquinas’s Ipsum Esse Subsistens), the Sufi meta- physics of Ibn ʿArabī (Waḥdat al-Wujūd), and the Tantric Javanese philosophy of Mpu Tantular (Bhinneka Tunggal Ika, Kakawin Sutasoma, 14th c. CE). The convergence is neither historical accident nor interpretive projection: each tradition, when it pursues the question of Being with sufficient rigor, encoun- ters the same transcendental horizon—consciousness as the condition within which any ontological disclosure first becomes possible. This epistemologi- cal grounding is then subjected to internal challenge: Levinas’s critique that any ontology of the Absolute risks neutralizing the infinite ethical demand of the Other is answered by showing that non-dual consciousness radical- izes rather than dissolves ethical responsibility. Apparent counter-examples from Theravāda anattā, Kabbalistic Ein Sof, and traditions of genuine non- monistic resistance (Jainism, Sāṃkhya, Cārvāka) are examined: the first two are clarified as convergent; the last three sharpen the profile of the thesis by distinguishing its robust epistemological core from its more contestable on- tological extension. The result is a structural perennialism within the horizon of consciousness: not a synthesis that dissolves traditions, but a map of the ontological terrain that serious inquiry—in Hebrew grammar, Greek meta- physics, Sufi ontology, and Nusantaran wisdom—independently and neces- sarily traverses.
Jimmy Yuanda Mahardhika (2026) studied this question.